Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 140 Filed 03/25/16 Page 1 of 6 Page ID #:3530

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

Peter J. Anderson, Esq., Cal. Bar No. 88891

E-Mail: pja@pjanderson.com
LAW OFFICES OF PETER J. ANDERSON
A Professional Corporation
100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2010
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Tel: (310) 260-6030
Fax: (310) 260-6040
Attorneys for Defendants
JAMES PATRICK PAGE, ROBERT ANTHONY
PLANT, JOHN PAUL JONES, WARNER/CHAPPELL
MUSIC, INC., SUPER HYPE PUBLISHING, INC.,
ATLANTIC RECORDING CORP., RHINO
ENTERTAINMENT COMPANY and WARNER
MUSIC GROUP CORP.
Helene Freeman, Esq., admitted pro hac vice
E-Mail: hfreeman@phillipsnizer.com
PHILIPS NIZER LLP
666 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10103-0084
Tel: (212) 977-9700
Fax: (212) 262-5152
Attorneys for Defendants
JAMES PATRICK PAGE, ROBERT ANTHONY
PLANT and JOHN PAUL JONES

15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

16

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

17

WESTERN DIVISION

18

MICHAEL SKIDMORE, etc.,

Plaintiff,

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

vs.
LED ZEPPELIN, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:15-cv-03462 RGK (AGRx)

DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF
MOTION AND MOTION IN
LIMINE NO. 7 TO EXCLUDE
EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT AS
TO WEALTH OR THE LACK
THEREOF; MEMORANDUM OF
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN
SUPPORT
Date: May 10, 2016
Time: 9:00 a.m.
Courtroom of the Honorable
R. Gary Klausner
United States District Judge

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 140 Filed 03/25/16 Page 2 of 6 Page ID #:3531

TO PLAINTIFF AND HIS ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on May 10, 2016, at 9:00 a.m. or as soon

thereafter as the matter may be heard in Courtroom 850 of the above-entitled District

Court, located at 255 East Temple Street, Los Angeles, California, defendants James

Patrick Page, Robert Anthony Plant, John Paul Jones, Warner/Chappell Music, Inc.,

Super Hype Publishing, Inc., Atlantic Recording Corporation, Rhino Entertainment

Company and Warner Music Group Inc., will move the above-entitled Court, the

Honorable R. Gary Klausner, United States District Judge presiding, for an Order

excluding all evidence and argument as to the parties and Randy Wolfes wealth or

10

the lack thereof.

11

This Motion is brought on the grounds that, as stated more fully in the

12

accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the parties and Randy

13

Wolfes wealth or the lack thereof is not relevant and evidence and argument as to

14

their wealth or lack thereof also would confuse issues, mislead the jury, prejudice

15

defendants and result in undue delay and wasted trial time.

16

This Motion is based upon this Notice of Motion and Motion, the

17

Memorandum of Points and Authorities filed with this Notice of Motion and

18

Motion, the pleadings and papers on file in this action, the matters of which this

19

Court may take judicial notice, and such additional matters and oral argument as

20

may be offered in support of the Motion.

21

///

22

///

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
1

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 140 Filed 03/25/16 Page 3 of 6 Page ID #:3532

The Motions are made following the conference with plaintiffs counsel

pursuant to Local Rule 7-3, which took place on March 22, 2016.

Dated: March 25, 2016

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

/s/ Peter J. Anderson

Peter J. Anderson, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF PETER J. ANDERSON
A Professional Corporation
Attorney for Defendants
JAMES PATRICK PAGE, ROBERT
ANTHONY PLANT, JOHN PAUL JONES,
WARNER/CHAPPELL MUSIC, INC.,
SUPER HYPE PUBLISHING, INC.,
ATLANTIC RECORDING CORP., RHINO
ENTERTAINMENT COMPANY and
WARNER MUSIC GROUP CORP.
Helene M. Freeman, Esq.
PHILLIPS NIZER LLP
Attorney for Defendants
JAMES PATRICK PAGE,
ROBERT ANTHONY PLANT and
JOHN PAUL JONES

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 140 Filed 03/25/16 Page 4 of 6 Page ID #:3533

1
2

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

1.

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff has indicated he intends to offer evidence or argue that defendants

have received large sums from the success of Led Zeppelin and its members

compositions and recordings of those compositions, or are otherwise wealthy, and

Randy Wolfe was impoverished, with little or no success in his later years. This and

comparable testimony and argument is not relevant and would confuse the issues,

mislead the jury, prejudice defendants and result in undue delay and wasted trial

time.
Accordingly, evidence or argument as to the parties and Randy Wolfes

10
11

wealth or the lack thereof should be excluded.

12

2.

EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT AS TO THE PARTIES AND RANDY

13

WOLFES WEALTH OR THE LACK THEREOF SHOULD BE

14

EXCLUDED

15

[A]ppeals to class prejudice are highly improper and cannot be condoned and

16

trial courts should ever be alert to prevent them. United States v. Socony-Vacuum

17

Oil Co., 310 U.S. 150, 239 (1940). As a result, evidence of a partys wealth should

18

be excluded where it is not relevant to the issues in the case. Friedman v. Medjet

19

Assistance, LLC, No. CV 09-07585 MMM VBKX, 2010 WL 9081271, at *11 (C.D.

20

Cal. Nov. 8, 2010). That includes evidence of lack of wealth. Van Bumble v. Wal-

21

Mart Stores, Inc., 407 F.3d 823, 826 (7th Cir. 2005) (evidence of plaintiffs poverty

22

is irrelevant and would have been prejudicial to the jurys determination of

23

damages); see, also Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., 310 U.S. at 238 (Whether a man be

24

rich or poor, he is entitled to the same consideration in this Court).

25

Evidence or argument claiming defendants are wealthy is not relevant to any

26

issue and, even if it were, any probative value is substantially outweighed by the fact

27

that it would unfairly prejudice defendants, confuse the issues, mislead the jury and

28

waste time and delay the case. Fed. R. Evid. 403.

3

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 140 Filed 03/25/16 Page 5 of 6 Page ID #:3534

Likewise, evidence or argument that Randy Wolfe was impoverished, with

little or no success in his later years, is not relevant. Aside from raising these

assertions to invoke sympathy which is plainly improper plaintiff has offered

Wolfes supposed inability to pay a lawyer as Wolfes reason for never asserting a

claim since 1971. The only actual, admissible evidence of why he did not assert a

claim is the 1991 recording of Wolfe himself, explaining that he was happy to allow

the alleged use. Freeman Decl. (Doc. 97-8) at Exh. 6 at 5-8 & Audio Exh. 4.

Further, plaintiff has not produced any admissible evidence of Wolfes financial

condition, relying instead on hearsay testimony of others who also lack the required

10

personal knowledge.

11

In addition, the claim that Wolfe did not sue because he could not afford a

12

lawyer has little or no probative value, including because lawyers routinely handle

13

cases on a contingency fee basis.

14

substantially outweighed by the undue prejudice from allowing the testimony or

15

argument.
Accordingly, evidence or argument as to Wolfes claimed out of court

16
17

statements should be excluded.

18

3.

19

And, any conceivable probative value is

CONCLUSION
Evidence or argument as to the parties and Randy Wolfes wealth or the lack

20

thereof is irrelevant and properly excluded.

21

Dated: March 25, 2016

22
23
24
25
26
27

/s/ Peter J. Anderson

Peter J. Anderson, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF PETER J. ANDERSON
A Professional Corporation
Attorney for Defendants
JAMES PATRICK PAGE, ROBERT
ANTHONY PLANT, JOHN PAUL JONES,
WARNER/CHAPPELL MUSIC, INC.,
SUPER HYPE PUBLISHING, INC.,
ATLANTIC RECORDING CORP., RHINO
ENTERTAINMENT COMPANY and
WARNER MUSIC GROUP CORP.

28
4

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 140 Filed 03/25/16 Page 6 of 6 Page ID #:3535

1
2
3
4

Helene M. Freeman, Esq.

PHILLIPS NIZER LLP
Attorney for Defendants
JAMES PATRICK PAGE,
ROBERT ANTHONY PLANT and
JOHN PAUL JONES

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5